God exists

>God exists.
What no, that's stupid.
>Aliens will never meet us because of speed of light.
Nonono, scientists are just forgot the good physics that lets us meet aliens.

Attached: 1558388004601.jpg (452x395, 21K)

Other urls found in this thread:

worldsciencefestival.com/2011/11/ask_brian_green_what_is_the_universe_expanding_into/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

what

Normies immediately dismiss God as stupid but come up with nutty mental gymnastics to justify their belief in alien encounters.

Ya you were created and yes he probably laughs at you because you believe you came from nothing. Idk why people think God is this chill dude in the clouds that wants you to do the first impulse that pops into your head. I guess they just don't want to feel pain for choosing incorrectly. inb4 free will doesn't exist so I don't have to choose anything I'll let the world fuck me in the name of believing free will doesn't exist

You don't come from nothing. Solomon implies pre-existence and Augustine believed in it too. God wants you to do what your instincts tell you is right, which is sometimes thinking things over before acting. No free will doesn't mean you should let the world fuck you. It means you should exploit the deterministic nature of the universe to get what you want.

I’ll bite.

It’s pretty well established that the chemical environment of early earth was sufficient to facilitate the generation of complex organic molecules. Continual chemical reactions with the right chemical substrate, given many millions or a billion years, are very likely to result in complex proteins that are able to replicate just by being in an environment with raw molecular materials. Differential replication, along with varying substrates/environments, results in diverse and increasingly complex replicators. Once these replicators achieve chemical structures which allow them to interact and combine with one another, that sets off another round of natural selection and results in even more complex molecules. The genetic and paleontological evidence is so overwhelming for the common ancestry of all life is so overwhelming that it’s not really worth getting into.

As for the “beginning” of our universe (if it actually makes sense to call it that), or the whole “we came from nothing thing”, we don’t know. It does seem pretty silly to think that an intelligent entity would create a universe containing 1000000000000000000000 planets so one planet would be seeded with life, evolve over 3 million years into a shit ton of weird animals and plants, and culminate in a tribalistic hairless ape species which would be given strict contradictory religious instructions only in certain small communities on the planet, before written history or long distance communication or systematic rational thinking was established. Then expect future generations to believe those instructions and explanations thousands of years in the future after pretty much all of the explicit testable claims of the religions had been demonstrably debunked, solely on the word of people who thought that the earth had corners, sacrificed goats, and basically lived in human shit.

3 BILLION YEARS*** not million. Typo.

That doesn't disprove God at all, just what hillbillies believe.

going faster than the speed of light, or traveling through wormholes or whatever is not a huge leap of logic as believing sky daddy created *everything* and we have to follow the magic book or we go to hell for eternity

And no, there's no concrete evidence that aliens exist. But we know that life exists, and it's possible life could be elsewhere

That’s a pretty silly way to interpret the idea that absolute free will doesn’t exist.

Even if free will is an illusion (which I do think it is), you can still operate AS IF you have true autonomy, and not get fucked.

You can still “make” decisions and work in ways to further your self interest, or in a way which is conscientious. Just don’t take too much credit for it, because the ability to do that is ultimately determined by luck, location, and physics.

So people tend to put their hopes and believes into even the most ridiculous stuff just to feel better?
Well, yes!
That's exactly why religions are bullshit, feeding their followers nothing but soothing lies.

>sky daddy

Normies still look for soothing lies even when they aren't religious. Gommunism becomes the new Jesus.

Well.... the Bible doesn't say anything for or against the existence of life on other planets. Therefore, this has nothing to do with any sort of religious argument concerning Christianity.

Though the formation of complex proteins needed to make even the simplest of organisms is a HUGE stretch from the simple organic molecules they have tried to replicate in a science lab ( and there have been MANY flaws in the Miller-Urey experiment commonly cited and you can Google these if you like) but in nature, proteins don't build up by themselves. Proteins break down in nature unless some sort of life form creates them. That's what we find in nature. Also in nature, we observe that life only comes from life. We NEVER observe non living material spawning anything living, and once something is not alive, it can NEVER come to life. THAT is what we observe in nature. To believe that life can arise from non-life is unscientific, it goes AGAINST any observable science, and is pure speculation.

Of course. But as far as I know, there aren’t any evidences or observations about the universe that are most logically and parsimoniously explained by the existence of a god.

You can’t disprove omnipotent invisible space unicorns. But not knowing the origins of the universe is not a justified reason for believing in their existence.

I heard this in futurama.The way to travel faster then light is by bending space and not moving the actual ship.

>God wants you to do [...]
Nothing that you could possibly know.
Unless you believe the bible to be the written word of god, in which case YOU are an atheist to 99% of other religions out there, many of which who even disagree on origin, creation and the nature of your god.
And if you're able to dismiss all other apparent holy and divine inspired texts out there, who happen to disagree with you one, why exactly you're putting trust in yours again?
Do you have some insight the rest of the world lacks? Are you some kind of Angel, or related to the elephants who happen to carry the tortoise that is our world?
No? Well then color me convinced that you haven't even the faintest about what any deity out there actually wants.

Thanks for the clarification, Captain obvious.

[citation needed]

God is proved by philosophy. His existence is undeniable due to the cosmological argument and like.

>God is proved by philosophy.
lol.
See

>it goes AGAINST any observable science, and is pure speculation.
Normies won't believe it though. They are anti-science but claim to be pro-science. They follow a false science.

There has to be an original uncaused cause because you can't have an infinite regress. That original cause is responsible for everything and therefore God.

>you can't have an infinite regress

Attached: 1560138457312.png (730x844, 137K)

The atmospheric and chemical conditions believed to be required for the formation of these complex proteins (which existed on early earth) no longer exist. We should expect not to see formation of these complex molecules under current conditions.

It’s also not surprising that laboratory experiments, with limited funding, electric bill budget, and physical space, only existing over the past 150 years or so, haven’t yielded results containing every single required chemical product that would have resulted from a billion years of chemical reactions which had huge portions of the earth’s surface area and raw materials to work with.

I’m working towards my PhD in neurobiology in a deep red state. Abiogenesis is not a controversial idea, and is generally accepted to have enough supporting evidence that its’s considered the best current explanation.

>There has to be an original uncaused cause
false
>because you can't have an infinite regress.
in our universe, correct.
multiverse theory blows that oversimplified statement to shreds, tho.
Can't prove either as of yet, therefore can't know for certain.
Back to square 1.
You don't have a clue.
You just believe to have one.

No, you cannot have an infinite regress, even in multiverse theory, because it is not logically possible. You have to reach a point where there is an initial mover or the chain of causes never started and therefore doesn't exist.

>No, you cannot have an infinite regress, even in multiverse theory
false, read up on the topic before you embarrass yourself further.
Google "boltzmann brain" for starters.

you're using your finite, 3 dimensional intuition to say "it CANT happen". Until you prove it beyond any doubt, it is still a possibility

Red herring fallacy. It does not disprove the cosmological argument. The Boltzmann brain still arises due to physical mechanics and is therefore causal.

>forgot
what does this even mean?

In order for something to exist it has to have either started or be eternal. The first cause is eternal and started the chain of dependent causes.

have you skipped reading the part were it forms out of a thermodynamic equilibrium, therefore going up the entropy-ladder, therefore putting your "Only one direction for entropy" argument ad absurdum?
Kthxbye
Try harder next time.

I don’t believe in the existence of a god, but I do think that you’re probably right about our systems of logic being possibly insufficient to analyze systems or mechanisms outside of our observable universe.

Perhaps there is a permanent, timeless universe that, through unknown mechanisms or perturbations, results in emergent universes (or other things). We’ve reached a point in cosmology where philosophy and logic don’t have that much to contribute to the conversation.

space is infinite, why not time?

Science has proved there is only one direction for entropy.

Enjoy this everyone

Attached: 5aa39e5217414e679b1dfb5f151f5b45.png (1080x1920, 1.49M)

The current volume of space is not infinity. It is simply always expanding.

what is space expanding into?

how do you know that? as far as i know scientists have no idea how time and causality worked (if they even existed at all) prior to the big bang. i mean we have no idea how time and causality behave inside black holes and we can actually look at those.

We don't need to disprove God, you guys need to prove that he exists. You can't just claim something and than tell people to disprove it.
By the way I fucked your mother. She liked it a lot.

Irrelevant. Space still started at zero with the big bang alongside time. It had a beginning. This is proven science.

>The current volume of space is not infinity
how do you know this user? i'm sure if you shared your proof we'd be talking to a future noble laureate

it's not, the space it'self is expanding

>In order for something to exist it has to have either started or be eternal.
Not even philosphers, who are by a loooong shot not even versed in quantum physics doubt that.
and when it comes to the later, look at vacuum energy. entangled particles spawning out of the void and immediately annihilating again.
Void, dude.
Pure nothingness. And something comes from it. Right above your head even, only a couple of hundred miles away.

Just give up.
Even religious memes are just an ironic joke on their cost.

If what you call "void" is what causes everything then it is God, since it is the initial cause.

dont argue with braiwashed boomers user

>It had a beginning. This is proven science.
this isn't true user, not even close.the universe AS WE KNOW IT, PROBABLY had a beginning, this is the extent of current scientific knowledge

Fap material by snapchat exploit

Attached: 254e7283f33143638f460fdaa36f9a80.png (1080x1920, 1.69M)

that's literally saying god doesn't exist though

worldsciencefestival.com/2011/11/ask_brian_green_what_is_the_universe_expanding_into/

The cosmological argument proves God.
Everything either has a beginning or is eternal. The eternal thing is God.

>In order for something to exist it has to have either started or be eternal. The first cause is eternal and started the chain of dependent causes.
how do you know this user?

>Everything either has a beginning or is eternal.
how do you know this user?

what makes you think you have to understand what it came from, its pathetic that you want to understad or find the meaning so bad that you believe in fairy tales from 2000 years ago, unironically end your life you are useless

Because there cannot be an infinite regress.
No, it's not.
Because the uncaused cause is eternal and all other causes are created.

And guess what, science invented placeholders for missing values that put thermodynamics in question, and named them dark energy and dark matter. Science is not omniscient, and there are many OBSERVABLE phenomenons science can't quite explain.
So why use a flawed knowledgebase to drive absolute statements from? Not even scientists do this. They know that they don't know certain things, and therefore continue to look for answers. Why do YOU need certain things to be certain so bad?
Could it be - oh I don't know - THAT YOU HAVE A NEED FOR SOOTHING LIES, instead of actually trying to understand whats up.
Guess that's the precise reason why YOU aren't a scientist. The unknown can be scary. Rather too scary for someone who doesn't even dares to ask, but rather plays pretend.
Grow a pair and look beyond your outdated beliefs. Or stay dumb.
Idc, really.

God tier bait

>YOU aren't a scientist
I unironically am a scientist.

Not bait, just raw truth.

That seems pretty desperate and disingenuous. When people debate the existence of a god, we’re talking about a sentient entity that intentionally created the universe and/or life. Slapping the name God onto every possible explanation is super dumb.

theologians aren't scientists

>Because there cannot be an infinite regress.
but how do you know that user? there are many mathematical models which infinet regresses are perfectly happy existing, for example look into the Tipler cylinder, an infinetly long, infinetly massive rotating cylinder can create closed loops of time which neither begin nor end

this

If something never had an origin it must either be eternal or not exist.

they are just cucks who need to know their life has meaning, its pointless to argue with them

>If something never had an origin it must either be eternal or not exist.
well how do you know this user? these closed loops of time have a finite length, just like a circle has a finite circumference, but just as you can ride on a circular track and never reach the end these circular time loops neither have a beginning nor end while only existing for a finite period of time.

Strawman and adhom.

It’s getting harder to determine who the godfags are

>If something never had an origin it must either be eternal or not exist.
but why?

Nightly fap material

Attached: 36a074753058463ea703eee22505cd55.png (1080x1920, 1.93M)

The loop must have started at some point or be eternal.

Because if it doesn't have a cause it's either causeless or non-existent.

Every night this post is useless. Noone is converting anyone. It's a giant circle jerk

obviously not in any STEM field. therefore you're unqualified to judge our current understanding, as you've demonstrated quite clearly in the past 30 minutes.
And if you actually paid for a STEM certificate, demand a refund.

is a circular railway track of infinite length? does it have a start or a beginning? your assumptions of causality, while nice and intuitive, are simply wrong.

And yet its accurate

then why is it unreasonable to say the universe it'self is causeless?

see
already debunked.
you repeat a broken record

Adhom fallacy.
It either started at some point on that track or is eternal.
Then the universe's laws are God.
I already debunked that. The void is God if it causes everything else.

>Then the universe's laws are God.
well that's a pretty loose definition of god, if your position is
>i call the laws of physics god
then you're not wrong, just being a bit silly.

>Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backwards in time towards the beginning of the Universe, we would note that quite near what might otherwise have been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the Universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the Universe has no origin as we would understand it: the Universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state Universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state Universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time or space

i'm not saying this diagram is scientifically accurate, just simply using it for illustrative purposes. but why could such a universal cycle which repeats forever and has always existed not be a more reasonable explanation than a deity?

Attached: cycle.png (1051x805, 18K)

>got proven wrong so everything's god
Don't think that's how the whole god-thing works.

>just being a bit silly.
How so? No matter which is the uncaused cause that is God, the laws of physics are God's will.

not every argument ad hominem is a fallacy.
In your case it's quite relevant, since you missinterpret current scientific understanding of our universe, and lack the insight to look beyond your own superstitious beliefs.
Something every decent scientist is trained to avoid. And yet you call yourself a scientist.
So either you lied, were lied to, and in any case don't have the faintest clue of what you're talking about.
And this conclusion, while certainly not polite, is absolutely relevant to the discussion we have with you, so it isn't a fallacy by any capacity.

Btw, it's hilarious that you don't even get this simple fact.

>I already debunked that. The void is God if it causes everything else.
You debunked nothing. You simply declared vacuum pumps to be god-creating machines, lol.

Strawman fallacy, whichever single thing is the uncaused cause is God.
That would make the cycle the deity and every part of what goes on inside it His will.

> the laws of physics are God's will
nah dude, you're straying into conjecture there, why does it have to be a being with a will at all? why couldn't the singularity and the normal laws of physics, with no awareness, conciousness, will etc, have just existed eternally? no god being required

>That would make the cycle the deity and every part of what goes on inside it His will.
but why does it have to be a deity? why does it have to be a being? why couldn't it just exist without a god or deity?

More butthurt adhom fallacies.
>You simply declared vacuum pumps to be god-creating machines, lol.
Strawman fallacy.

Whatever label you want to slap on it, it is all powerful and responsible for everything.

jus because you "name" something god, it doesn't automatically becomes god.
Yes, there are uncaused particles (as far as we know, since we can clearly observe them, but have no clue how they spawn), but they are by no means omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, or eternal. actually, they annihilate after nanoseconds and disappear completely.

so they posses no god-like attributes.
You are simply desperate to point a finger on something and worship it. Which is cute, sad, hilarious, frustrating (since you have voting-rights), and a bunch of other kinds of silly at the same time.

just because you don't understand something, it isn't automatically a strawmen.
read looks like you don't even understand what a fallacy is. And on Yea Forums, that like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

but then you have no proof for god beyond defining what may be as being god, you start off with the conclusion that "god exists" and then work backwards. but when you step away, and see that a god(in the traditional sense, omnipotent being)less universe can exist without contradiction, why even bother with the god label?

Seems what we’ve got here is a dude that is so invested in the existence in some undefined concept he calls God, that he coopts any explanation, regardless of what it is, and labels it God. Peak intellectual dishonesty.

I do enjoy the thought of alien life out there somewhere but it is depressing that we will never see it based on our understanding of how physics work. It's human nature to see this as a problem. Maybe there is no solution. There's no solution to the problem of proving whether there is or isn't a god either, but that never stopped anyone from trying. In the process of looking for answers there's always a chance of bettering our understanding other things. Giving up just leaves nothing.

>speed of light
That makes no sense if you can propel the thing fast enough, the speed of travel off trying to stop down. You can speed the things to get there, slowing them down is the problem. Even failed things could give back important information to create successful things telemetry, if it off shoots.
Our universe is a galaxy with a tiny bit of information about a never ending galaxy that it too expansive to ever call ending. If God created our planet and life on it, his influence is never ending. There is more out there. The amount of effort god spends in vying with potential other gods on this planet is insignificant if you consider how many other planets or wannabe gods there are.

>it is all powerful and responsible for everything.
vaccum energy might be, not gonna lie.
But still we don't know. Anyways, it's certainly not responsible for religious idiots shitposting on Yea Forums, I can guarantee you that.

so if you have two explanations for the current universe, one requires an all knowing all powerful being which has existed forever, and the other simply requires a singularity which has existed forever, you can simply apply occam's razor and arrive at the result that there probably isn't a god

You can't even use proper spelling and grammar. You're just strawmanning again anyway. I said the initial uncaused cause is God, not some random particle in between.
Cope. Whatever paradigm you bring to the table the logical conclusion is God. You can't escape true logic.

dude, you are drunk.
go to bed.

>That makes no sense if you can propel the thing fast enough, the speed of travel off trying to stop down. You can speed the things to get there, slowing them down is the problem. Even failed things could give back important information to create successful things telemetry, if it off shoots.
pardon

>I said
and you are wrong.
regardless what you said.
Probably ever, judging by the amount of bullshit you just spewed in this thread.
Anyways, gotta work tomorrow, so I leave you to entertain someone else.
Thanks for the laugh.

so, now that we've reached the conclusion that the cosmological argument is not a proof for a theistic nor deistic god, do you have any other proofs which we can break down?

What the fuck am I reading?

Attached: 1505777761736.png (250x238, 79K)

I'm guessing English is not your native language.

bible belt gibberish.
don't waste neural cells on it.

It is proof for a theistic God. Since the uncaused cause is intricately responsible for everything including every aspect of your life it is a personal God.

Except it isn't.
My proof?
As good as yours: My ass.

well it's definitely not a proof of a theistic god, because that's like saying it specifically proves a religion, which it obviously doesn't. but as you already admitted, one potential solution is just the laws of physics existing eternally and nothing else, that doesn't fit any definition of a god my friend

if one of the solutions to your proof of god is that no being beyond what we perceive exists, then that's not a very convincing argument.